Know what everybody seems to miss in this question? What the hell is god standing on?

What's the answer, Chas? Mental masturbation. "To lift" is to apply force to alter the vector of motion; the underlying assumption is that of the original vector, gravitational attraction. So, to consider it from that extreme, a black hole stands on a black hole to lift a black hole, and what happens? A black hole.

(21-08-2012 11:41 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote: Well, similarly like I was discussing above, it's logical to presume that the idea of "all powerful" and "unlimited" encompasses 100% of possible logical tasks.
It's illogical that "all powerful" and "unlimited" includes incoherent ideals such as "Can God Klapopperstomp?" The idea that I created has no value and fails to be coherent. Therefore, it holds nothing on God's being unable to do such a thing since it, logically, cannot be performed by anything. It is only a creation of my imagination.
The idea that omnipotence includes nonsensical ideals is not logically assumed. To assume so would be to add detailed substance to a vague definition.

(21-08-2012 09:52 AM)Vosur Wrote: I'm still waiting for a source on this.

God, by definition, is supernatural. God's powers are super, or above, the natural. If they were not, God would be a natural being/phenomenon, subject to all of the natural laws of the universe. A being that is subject to the natural laws of the universe could not have created them. Therefore, in order to be considered the creator of the universe, God must have dominion over it and everything in it.

An omnipotent being can do anything, by definition. The only possible answer to "can he..." is yes. There are no caveats. If God cannot do certain things, then he is not omnipotent.

Being able to do anything includes being able to create paradox. In fact, any phenomenon that is supernatural is by definition impossible; not in the sense that it cannot occur, but in the sense that it shouldn't be able to occur despite it having just done so. So can God create something so heavy that he can't lift it? Yes. The fact that it's a paradox and that it's impossible is irrelevant. He's omnipotent (assuming of course that he actually exists and is in fact omnipotent).

To put it another way, a paradox is a restriction. Not only do omnipotent beings live outside of restriction, they created the restriction.

Quote:If we define existence as that which God has, because the one thing we can say about God is that he exists, he is, he has a state… he exists in a state of absolute isness, in Hebrew that’s called Yeshut, isness, by in no way shape or form can I define myself relative to those terms. Meaning that’s a level of reality that is completely beyond time, completely beyond space, completely even beyond finite or infinite. God isn’t even infinite, he creates infinite reality and he creates finite reality. He’s beyond both. Which helps solve the problem how…. the philosophers asked how can it be that an infinite God creates finite reality. Judaism doesn’t see a problem whatsoever because God’s not infinite. God’s completely beyond limitation. Infinite reality itself is limited by virtue of the fact that it can’t express itself in a finite way. Finite reality is limited to the extent that it exists within the context of some sort of finite space, finite time. God is beyond both.
- Rabbi Boruch Kaplan

We can't know what omnipotence truly is since we have never encountered it. Omnipotence is a man-made word with a man-made definition representing a man-made concept. It can be defined as the ability to do anything without restriction or as the ability to do anything within the laws of the universe (physics, mathematics, science, etc.) As an atheist, I find that it gives nothing to the theist position to limit omnipotence to the laws of the universe. To imagine that even an omnipotent being could make 1 + 1 = 3 defies rationality - the very thing we atheists claim is our foundation. Indeed such displays of anti-logic from atheists smacks of the very delusion I hear so many labeling theists with. Moreover, I find those positions to be a poor excuse for better arguments against the existence of a god.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair

(21-08-2012 12:13 PM)Vosur Wrote: I'm still waiting for a source on this.

Vosur, I am not getting this idea from a "source". The line of thinking comes from what I find to be more coherent and logical than to assume that "all powerful" and "unlimited power" includes imaginary illogical tasks.

If you want an internet source, I don't know of any.
You can Google search if you'd like.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

(21-08-2012 12:13 PM)Vosur Wrote: I'm still waiting for a source on this.

Vosur, I am not getting this idea from a "source". The line of thinking comes from what I find to be more coherent and logical than to assume that "all powerful" and "unlimited power" includes imaginary illogical tasks.

If you want an internet source, I don't know of any.
You can Google search if you'd like.

For something to be logical, it needs to have some merit.

Quote:log·ic/ˈläjik/ Noun
1) Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity: "experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic".

2) A particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference: "Aristotelian logic".

(21-08-2012 08:33 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote: Vosur, I am not getting this idea from a "source". The line of thinking comes from what I find to be more coherent and logical than to assume that "all powerful" and "unlimited power" includes imaginary illogical tasks.

If you want an internet source, I don't know of any.
You can Google search if you'd like.

You're making the claim that "all powerful" does not include performing illogical/paradoxical tasks, therefore you have the burden of proof.